They don't understand the problem and they're taking all the wrong steps to fix the issue. They know there is a problem but to the misfortune of their people the leadership is completely ignorant of how humanity thinks — SkyLeach

How can you be that sure to say that? Do you really think China is in a big issue of misunderstanding? I think you are mixing Taiwang and Hong Kong political crisis with their culture.
Check this article out:THE "SIX SCHOOLS" OF CHINESE PHILOSOPHY

Do you really think that a country with such philosophical background is making "wrong steps?"

Tragedians and pessimists of every stripe have been at this trope since Year Zero:

I think this phrase is quite contradictory. Tragedians need some background or stimulus to act in such way. I mean, pessimism is not inherent in our minds. You have to live different kinds of events which lead you to being pessimistic.
I think what @Athena is asking is if romanticism lead us to war, not backwards. I mean, we can debate here if romanticism itself works as propaganda to violence.

As you said, China is a good example that you can run a country without religion in your culture. Even more, they are completely a different culture country. They are not worried or concerned about religion or priests, they only want be the runners of the World both economically and politically.

every single one when religion is destroyed without replacing it with a state-sponsored religious replacement the social model fractures (breaks down into civil conflict) over 1-3 generations.

Thus: the Chinese are bussing in nationals to replace the Ugar. They have experts with models too. — SkyLeach

I am disagree here. I do not se them as a "broke" social civilization. They do not need replace anything because they do not have religion in their culture as much as others. It is known that kids in China are taught by Conficius and Lao-Tse (Tao Te Ching) readings. I want be honest with you...
I think is better for kids being taught with readings from Taoism rather than Bible...
They are a super economic state with so much power in many areas and I do not see them as fail nation just for being atheists.

Is that really true? — frank

I think not! To be honest, I guess what we really demand of our governors is efficiency, I personally do not even care about their image.
But this does not need to be connected with being a cheater or play dirty.
If our public representatives are like that, what should we expect from public administration?

"Dirty hands" refers to the one who is corrupt and recognizes that corruption is wrong. — frank

He recognizes it and probably takes some decisions on it. But, at the same time, he knows he has to be corrupt and a cheater to climb in the world of power inside of politics.
Then, is a vicious circle. Corruption will never end inside politics. Again, this causes a negative image along citizens about what politicians suppose to be.

so the leader should basically destroy her own image.

Wow! That's sounds quite contradictory! Because (in my ignorance) I guess the leader's image is very important! This makes a politician win or lose some polls.

I'm reading the article now (while I have access to jstor :wink:)

Ok! Perfect :up:

One of the problems of dirty hands could be the big gap between leader's interests and citizen's rights/needs. According to this Machiavelli principle: a good political leader must be ready to commit immoral acts for the sake of the existence of the community she serves, so, for instance, be prepared to use torture or the murder of innocent bystanders if those actions have the potential to save the community from destruction., it shows that politics are just the ambition of a few.
It can make the leader get rid of many problems but at the same time can cause disaffection towards people and promote radical ideas as anarchism.

I personally think that Machiavelli wrote all these political ideas or principles from an individual point of view. I mean, he was thinking in saving the King of that specific period of time because it was the only important sovereign value back then. But now, the issue es more difficult. Whenever the citizens see the dirty hands being applied they get angry and can destroy your image forcing you to just resign.

For something to be proven to be murder you have to prove issues like freewill and mental intention. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, I am agree with you. Mental intention is important to classify an act as a murder. But I guess all are important but different. I can kill someone with intention (for example, revenge) or accidentally (car crash). But both would have their legal procedures. One is not "better" or "more important" than the other.

Therefore in a society or space without laws someone's death at the hands of another has no special feature to distinguish it from a death per se. — Andrew4Handel

I think not. You are just misunderstanding the typified crime in a code book with the act per se. One precedes to the other. This is why lawmakers tend to modify the laws, with the act of making an order to all the thing that could happen in a society.

societies without laws still can tell the difference between a natural death and someone dying from a knife in his back. — Benkei

Absolutely. But I guess that it is important to have some laws working on the state. This makes a safety feeling when an issue arises. For example:
You and me make an agreement about purchasing a home. It would be more safe if we have a civil code to look at and a public record to check what is going on with the house.

It guarantees that only a tyranny (and a very strict tyranny) can hold humanity together. — SkyLeach

Not necessarily. I see your point that we could have a big problem if we lack of both religion and philosophy (well, if I am honest with you I would not care if we are lack of religion at all...).
The big issue here are the masses and how easily they can be misunderstood. Religion has always played a good role here, manipulative. Sometimes it even looks like that philosophy and reasoning is only made to "loneliness" citizens or weirds. I mean, all of those who do not accept the imposed rules. Furthermore wisdom, I think philosophy is key to help us to get rid of all of it.

I'm arguing that good and bad should be determined by the individual not the masses — Jake Hen

I wish it too but it looks like humans do not know how to live in loneliness. This is why masses take part of it. We tend to live in groups or communities, then, these ones need some kind of rules that can even being imposed on others.

I do not see it as impossible to live in your own but it is one of most difficult things. Can we by only ourselves, thus, our criteria about what is good or bad? I mean, this concept but just to our loneliness, not necessarily sharing it with others

Is there theoretically a wrong way to live? — Jake Hen

Yes. I think there are wrong ways to live. First of all, not living according to the laws of your state. When you do so, you are not respecting other's rights. Then, police and courts should take care of.

For an ethical point of view: we can be agree that there are some wisdoms to live a "better" life than others. Basic principles as "do not take drugs when you are young" "don't get involved in problems" "be careful who are you hanging out with" etc... These wisdoms can allow us to, at least, have a safer life. Don't you think?
So yes, I think there are some "wrong" ways according to law and philosophy. These branches help us to, literally, catch a "better" way to live.

"'the reduction of empathic distress' the basic inhumanity that the facelessness of the internet permits" is a major piece of the problem. — Bitter Crank

Good quote. I am completely agree. Internet created a "free" status of awareness where it looks like it doesn't seem to have negative impact when you hurt someone. Clever politicians and press media use this to spread disinformation.
I don't want sound that negative with internet, because I am literally using it right now (well at least here we have some admins who take care the rules are respected) but it is a dangerous place. The kids should stay away.

Good OP, it was interesting to read something with such importance as how to overcome angry and blame because, I think, these are one of the most humane emotions. Despite we see a lot of branches to overcome both I guess it depends on someone's personality and behaviour.
To be honest, if someone ever hurts me that bad, I do not know if I would be able to overcome it. I am a very apprehensive. Probably all of those branches you have shared with us could help me to just accept it. But I don't see myself overcoming the issue.
Another example: There are couples that, when someone cheat on the other, this one for some reason forgive him/her. It is amazing they are available to do so.

We can go beyond through anger thanks to time and accepting it. This is position. There is a phrase which stands: Time cures everything

Yeah, at best philosophy reflects (2nd/3rd order) for its own sake without dogmatic beliefs (1st order) — 180 Proof

:up: :fire:

Sorry, English language is not my native language so probably (sometimes) I make grammar mistakes. This is what I wanted to share with you:

One of the principles of philosophy is questioning the individual and all the aspect around it. So, we start in the base that at least we do not believe in ourselves or at least in what are we looking to. Then, we try to go further in analysis or theorizing about different aspects which involves us. For example: death, time, beginning, uncertainty, dreams, etc... We can even create a loop where we debate from the same issue again and again.

But, inside religion, I do not see (according to theologians) God as questioned. It literally exists. Then, they start to develop some theories about their existence or how could the world be without God's blessing.

I am agree with you in the point that both sides tend to find a meaningful life. But I still think that the main difference between these two is that how free we are of questioning everything.
Inside theology, God is unquestioned, while inside philosophy we as humans are pretty questionable. We try to find different thoughts to put a meaning about what is going on so since the moment where we do not even believe in ourselves, we do not have that necessity to surrender to something or someone as God.

It it fully rendered and unquestioned. — kudos

Literally the opposite. This is what philosophy stands for. To question everything or at least all what is connected to our awareness or concerns.
That is why we can see different theories and thinkers through the history of philosophy: Ancient Greece, rationalists, empiricism, British/German schools, etc... They all tend to refute the previous thesis or essays of whatever they are debating.
But inside religion, I do not know anyone who is not rendered to God because it could cause the opposite.

I guess we are misunderstanding (from academician point of view) the concepts of theology and philosophy. They seem to be similar but in long-term are pretty different. This is why there are PhD in both matters.
Some years ago, at least in my country, when you picked up philosophy, you were included as student in liberal arts. While, if you decided to dedicate to religion, it was called traditional. In nowadays, it is different...
If you study a philosophy degree you would see a brief content of religion. Like it or not it is literally a way of reasoning or believing for a lot of people.

As much as we hate to admit it, I think we in philosophy rely on dogmatism to the same extent that any religions we can name do — kudos

It could be but the main difference is that we can easily change of dogma because we are not rendered to a "God"

So, a positive judgement based on color, race, ethnicity, or religion would be bigoted to?

Most of the judgements are not positives. That is the problem I guess. Whenever we see general stereotypes of some ethnic groups, it tends to show off the most striking characteristics such as race, colour, accent, economic status, etc...
I think old cartoons are a good example in this issue. I remember they were full of negative prejudices but we did not notice because were blind by our childhood and lack of malice

Those who know about the world are less easily fooled and can defend themselves when others want to make them the plaything of their interests, in politics or advertising, for example.

:up: I am agree. Not only in the fact we can be less fooled by press media but the art of increasing our knowledge. I cannot believe there are people who don't care about the world and do not want go further. I think it is a problem. We can't allow the nations to have such ignorant people around. It could be counter-productive, I do not see the point of manipulate the persons in long-term.

Someone who is awake to these things will keep a skeptical distance not only from esoteric literature, but also from economic forecasts, election campaign arguments, psychotherapeutic promises, and brazen presumptions of brain research. And he will become irritated when he hears others merely parroting scientific formulas."

Apart from skeptical thought, I would say pessimism. When we are not easily catfished by others and we can see how vicious men/women can act, we tend to decrease our belief in everything related to the state. Probably this causes the isolation in some persons

Is the universe, this world, too bad for a being so good as God? — Agent Smith

This is a poor view of human values and knowledge and it looks like we are forced to be a vassal of God. I think we should rephrase your question:
is this universe, this world, worthy to be a good/honorable citizen to live in?

“If one ‘goes Platonic’ with math,” writes Pigliucci, empiricism “goes out the window.”
— What is Math?

What nonsense. — jgill

Interesting quote indeed. I going to defend my opinion of what could be the meaning.
Empiricism is the one of the principles of philosophy where it is argued that our knowledge (adding all the stuff connected to) is based in our experience of language and interpretation. So, we develop ideas and theories staring in a basic primise: we are not born knowing, we develop our knowledge through the time making the effort of learning from others.
Then, putting the math example, we develop all the equations and theories because we are taught previously.

I guess, in Platonism is different. It is a classic thought where what is around us is full of ideas. Then, it is not necessary to work on it through experience or practice.

If maths are proven by showing the effectiveness, then it is correlated to empiricism. They both need to be together. Platonism could be just ideas.

Zelenskiy said NATO membership was a remote “dream.”

Whenever I read news or quotes related to this selfishness conflict, I feel bad about Ukrainian citizens. They are the only one that truly would lose in this issue. They live with a flawed coin monetary system and a puppet Prime Minister of who...?
I don't if I would be able to get rid of such uncertainty all days of the week

Definitely, yes!

I guess he felt overwhelmed because he did not expect to have a lot of answers or people taking part in it

So what's the answer to the puzzle? Is DavidJohnson still around? — L'éléphant

We still waiting for the answer! This puzzle was funny but the author of the OP disappeared

we are talking about ordinary belief not about religious belief (or faith): — neomac

I see your point but this only happens when we make the effort to distinguish different types of belief. Thus, only happens when, at least, we destroy the argument of a monotheistic argument. For me, for example, "religious" belief does not even exist because I don't belive on it since the beginning.

I see what you quoted and it is pretty interesting indeed. This thread is so good to learn about.

Well, it depends on the context we are seeking about. If you are debating with a theist, I would say for them belief implies truth. for example:
God exists because I believe in their existence. Then, God's existence is true

He observed the bamboo for many years hoping to understand the truth. However, he barely learned anything from the bamboo. — Howard

Don't you think that probably he did not learn anything about the bamboo but from himself?
I guess this is what Xinxue 心学 could be about. I liked how you explained the art of see physical objects previously. Nevertheless, I think Asian (specially Chinese culture and philosophy) tends to go further than this.
Observe a bamboo until their growth is something so popular in China, Japan, South Korea, etc...
According to their culture, it is related to spring (春). For us, it could be just another period of the year, but for them there is a lot meaning. This is why the example is about bamboo growing. I guess he was waiting for something related to spring lifetime. It is known that here is when all the flowers bloom. Probably our lives too.

However, I think that there are still many things and problems that science cannot perfectly explain, and society is always progressing — Howard

Yes, you are right. I guess this happens because humans tend to care for something further than numbers. Trying to put meanings through philosophy or poetry

But what do you do when someone confronts you with Christianity? — spirit-salamander

I going to sound rude as hell but I would ignore him/her. It is difficult to explain but I want to avoid being involved in thoughts I do not believe about. I feel it could be even worthless and a lost of time to me

But if you had never dealt with Christianity before? — spirit-salamander

But, maybe, I do not need deal with Christianity since the beginning.

I feel we are all here because we care about something. — Andrew4Handel

We care and we want to be understood by others. There is that period of time in life that you question literally everything: uncertainty, death, time, etc... So you need to be fed up by knowledge trying to get a worthy answer to our cares or thoughts.
I personally think that sometimes nihilism is worthy. Whenever you can go through it, is when you are ready to care even more than ever.

When Bad Thinking Happens to Good People: How Philosophy Can Save Us from Ourselves, S. Nadler & L. Shapiro — 180 Proof

It looks like so interesting. I going to check it out and put it on my next readings.

Examples:

Christian: Jesus is resurrected and is our only way to salvation. Faith saves. — spirit-salamander

Meh, I even do not want to ask. This argument looks like empty for me because I am not religious. Probably this statement sounds quite disrespectful. But, what I want to share with you is that it depends how worthy of reading/listening the other part must be.
I quote your other example:

Kantian: Spatiotemporal structures do not exist per se and whoever lies commits a serious moral offense. — spirit-salamander

Exactly, in this context, I would ask:

"What exactly does it mean?" (What does that mean more precisely?)

Because it sounds so interesting and worthy to learn for me

Lots of stuff by Kierkegaard: The Present Age, The Sickness Unto Death, On the Concept of Irony, Attack Upon Christendom, Fear and Trembling — Dermot Griffin

You would enjoy it :up:

Yes, you are right. This situation is even useless. I don't even know why he did this. It looks like he is kind of negligent

This is how we protect ourselves from the following:
[...]

I respect and see your point but I guess it also depends on the context. There are formal and informal conversations. The OP would be helpful when we are debating something related to a serious issue or when the involved members are strangers. But, when you are with friends or in a friendly environment, I think you could use less formal techniques

Russia says it is pulling back some of its troops stationed near Ukraine's border

What do you think? Are we closer to finish this tension? Is it a strategic plan from Putin?

Argument layout:
In the Christian view, God saves us from our suffering.
When God is not saving us from our suffering, They [God] are allowing it to continue.
One would never inflict unnecessary suffering upon someone they loved.
In Chrisianity, God loves everyone.
Thus, Christianity is false. — makayla harris

My argument from a Kierkegaardian point of view:
You have to accept suffering. A human being suffers along their way because is one of the most stimulus we live on.
Instead of being "saved" from suffering, you just live according to it. Making subterfuges trying to avoid it, could be unnecessary.
There is no proof that God "loves" us, then you cannot put in their shoulders our weaknesses, as suffering or uncertainty.

Why did you say Christianity is false?